Standing Committee B

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

International Development Bill

Clause 4 - Supplementary powers

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 17, leave out `(wholly or partly)' and insert `wholly'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 18, leave out `(wholly or partly)' and insert `wholly'.

Cheryl Gillan: Good morning, Mr. Benton. I welcome you to the Chair and I hope that I will give you no more trouble than I gave your co-Chairman, Mr. Butterfill, on Tuesday.
 The substance of the Bill is extremely serious and the Opposition have no fundamental objections to the principles behind it. Through amendment No. 10, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and myself, we are trying to probe the thinking in the Department for International Development and raise some of the issues that we have not had an opportunity to discuss over the past four years, in the absence of any substantial debates on the Floor of the House. 
 Let me at once set the Minister's mind at rest—

Chris Mullin: My mind is already at rest.

Cheryl Gillan: Well, that is a matter of opinion. Far be it from me to accuse the Minister of having a lazy mind, but I think that he had better wake up quickly. This is a probing amendment, and if the Minister puts his brain on alert, he might be able to answer some of my questions. The spirit of co-operation during the previous sitting was amazing: the Liberal Democrat spokesperson joined the official Opposition in a vote on an amendment. That may happen again—who knows just how far I could take the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge)?
 The amendment is designed to ensure that this country does not make any subscription to an agency that does not subscribe to the same development principles as the United Kingdom Government. It would stop subscriptions to organisations that only partly work towards poverty reduction. The Minister will know that the explanatory notes to clause 4 state: 
 ``This clause provides (in subsection (1)) for the Secretary of State to undertake activities or enter into arrangements which, while they might not in themselves meet the tests set out in clauses 1, 2 and 3, are preparatory to, or will facilitate the provision of, assistance under these clauses. An example of such activity is the commissioning of research.'' 
I query why, in the explanatory notes, only one example is given—that of commissioning research. The Minister and the Secretary of State have laid so much emphasis on the poverty reduction focus that it is quite surprising suddenly to find that little let-out clause—actually, an enormous let-out clause that drives a coach and horses through the main purpose of the Bill. The Bill is intended to confine and focus the activities of the DFID to poverty reduction—an aim that we all regard as commendable—but clause 4 allows it to do everything else. 
 I query the underlying rationale for the legislation. On Second Reading and in some interesting Committee debates we have had the opportunity to question the Minister and probe the Department on the rationale for the Bill's introduction. We do not resent its introduction, but it seems to be a piece of gratuitous legislation at the end of a Session. It is ridiculous to lay such emphasis on the poverty reduction focus and then to add a substantive clause whose effect is to allow the Department to forget the rest of the Bill and do what it wants. If the Government decide that poverty reduction should be the overriding goal of development, it is contradictory for them to take out subscriptions to organisations that do not wholly contribute to that goal. 
 We are concerned that the word ``partly'' may be construed too broadly. Only the Minister can tell me what his understanding of ``partly'' is, but I believe that it might lead to the use of the aid budget to support agencies and organisations that do little to contribute to poverty reduction. 
 ``An example of such activity is the commissioning of research.'' 
presumably means any research in any country, so the Secretary of State will at any point be able to spend valuable aid money and DFID budget money on commissioning focus groups and research data from MORI or some other organisation. We need to know what the Minister believes is meant by ``the commissioning of research'', as mentioned in the explanatory notes. 
 The Secretary of State supported the general point when she said on Second Reading: 
 ``In all Government systems, people regard the development budget as a residual to fund their particular concerns. Those may be completely proper and honourable matters, but they are not always to do with the reduction of poverty.''—[Official Report, 6 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 173.] 
By so saying, she has driven a coach and horses through the first three clauses of the Bill, by saying, in effect, that spending on matters that do not contribute to a reduction in poverty, no matter how noble, should both be found and not be found out of the aid budget. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will make clear which of the two emphases is correct and on what purposes he plans to spend aid money in future. 
 As the Minister knows, the clause is about subscriptions and agencies' funds, which are dealt with by amendments Nos. 10 and 11 respectively. The Government fund subscriptions to at least two agencies that are not classed under official development assistance. They are the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, better known as UNESCO, and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, which is known as the FAO—I suspect that we will sink in all the initials. Those two organisations were given DFID funding of about £13 million last year, which did not count as aid. 
 According to departmental statistics on international development for 1999-2000, only part of the United Kingdom subscriptions to the FAO and UNESCO are defined by DAC—the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—as official development assistance and shown as multilateral contributions to developing countries. The subscriptions in question have to be accounted for as ``non-aid multilateral''. We need to question how the Government can justify funding the relevant subscriptions from the aid budget if they are not wholly related to poverty reduction, given that such action contradicts Government policy and the objectives of the Secretary of State, who has said that the development budget should not be regarded as a residual to fund particular concerns, but that it exists to contribute to a reduction in poverty. 
 I studied the departmental report that some Committee members helpfully pointed out to me earlier in the week. It was suggested that I was not in possession of the report, but, sadly for my accusers, I had it in my papers, so the challenge passed me by. I refer to pages 136 and 137—[Interruption.] I shall give way if a Labour Member wants to speak.

Tom Clarke: I apologise—my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) and I were just discussing how much we admire the way in which the hon. Lady expresses herself.

Cheryl Gillan: Labour Members do not say much in this Committee, but when they do, they speak beautifully and with style.
 I read pages 136 and 137 in that extremely weighty and glossy document, the departmental report 2000, to find out about the organisations to which we pay a subscription. I know that I am capable of getting things wrong, so I hope that the Minister will confirm that I have the full list of organisations to which we pay a subscription within the terms of the Bill. I hope that the relevant names are those that are marked ``(Subscription)''. As we know, Government Departments have recently made quite a few mistakes and that there has been little joined-up government—I refer to the quadripartite Committee report published yesterday, which mentioned factually inaccurate replies from the Government. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will forgive me for wanting to check the detail of the report. 
 I hope that the Minister will confirm that the four relevant organisations are: UNESCO, on which we shall spend the not inconsiderable sum of £12,431,000 this year; the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation, UNIDO, on which we shall spend £3,900,000; UNFAO, on which we appear to be spending £12,400,000; and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, EBRD, on which we shall spend £11,680,000 this year. Those are considerable sums, so it is right to ask the Minister for confirmation. Are those currently the only organisations in the relevant category? Will the Minister assure the Committee that before next year, even closer evaluation of the work of those organisations will be carried out? Next year similar amounts will be spent, although we are to reduce our spend on UNIDO from £3,900,000 to £3,300,000. 
 I hope that I have read the figures correctly: although I wear glasses for seeing things in the distance, I do not yet use them for reading, but the print in these publications, which have cost a great deal over the years, was very difficult to read. Will the Minister confirm that the sums that I mentioned are being spent on those four organisations—and that the money is increasing next financial year? I should also like to see the four organisations shown clearly on a separate table as they are specifically mentioned in the legislation. 
 Is the list complete? Which organisations are in line for subscriptions and which other organisations could join the list? Can a separate schedule be produced? On what grounds and under what terms and conditions would DFID cancel or reduce subscriptions to those organisations? What criteria would be used when making the decision to subscribe to an organisation or to remove it from the list? Who audits the organisations to find out how they contribute to poverty reduction? While the Bill is being scrutinised, it would be helpful to hon. Members to learn about the internal workings of the Department and how such decisions are reached. 
 Labour Members have remained silent, apart from the odd intervention, so I feel as though I am asking questions of the Government on their behalf. The organisations I am discussing are very worthy, but there is a special clause to separate them out and to enable us to pay money to organisations that are wholly or only partly involved in poverty reduction. We need more details about our involvement, the sums we spend on such organisations, how we can remove ourselves from their lists and how we analyse and evaluate their performance. I hope that my probing amendment, No. 10, will give the Minister the vehicle he needs to enlighten us about his Department's thinking. 
 Amendment No. 11 was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon and myself. We were advised by the Clerk who helped us to draft our amendments that it would provide a similar vehicle for discussion. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the UK does not provide assistance to any fund that does not subscribe to the development principles of the UK Government. It limits the resources that can be allocated to funds that only partly work towards the Government's objective of poverty reduction. 
 The same tenets apply as to the previous amendment. It is reasonable to ask why the aid budget should be used to support a fund that only partly contributes to a reduction in poverty. We should like more information about which funds that only partly contribute to a reduction in poverty the Government envisage supporting. The phrase ``wholly or partly'' is far too broad: it could mean that substantial amounts of UK aid were placed in funds that do not share the Government's objectives. That would be unacceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us. Clause 4 appears to allow the Government to ignore the fact that poverty reduction should be the sole aim of development assistance. That is inconsistent with the Secretary of State's remarks, so an explanation is necessary. 
 Page 136 of the departmental report 2000 lists the funds to which the Government subscribe. I hope that the Minister will go through the figures and tell us what falls within the ambit of the clause and what criteria are used to decide how much money should go to the various organisations. 
 The African Development bank, for instance, does not receive a large amount. In 1996-97, the Conservative Government put in only £71,000, but no more money was put in during the first three years of the present Government. Now, suddenly, £860,000 is being paid in, and the same amount is envisaged for next year. The African development fund will receive a more substantial sum—more than £29.5 million. The Asian Development bank will receive £910,000, but the Asian development fund will have about £25 million. The Caribbean Development bank will have nothing, but the Caribbean development fund will receive £2.6 million. The United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF, will receive £13 million and the International Fund for Agricultural Development will have £3 million. 
 It would be extremely helpful if those organisations and funds could be identified in the Bill. There seems to be a pattern in the layout of the information on pages 136 and 137 of the report, but the Bill may change the way in which we consider the funding of some of those organisations. Will the Minister examine the way in which the information is presented? 
 What will prevent those funds from departing from a poverty focus? Once the Bill is enacted, and we are happy that the Department's spending should focus on the reduction of poverty, what guarantees does the UK taxpayer have that those funds will partly or even entirely be used for other purposes? It will be too late: we shall have given them the money. What safeguards do we have to ensure that our money is spent on those who most need the aid? What is the minimum poverty reduction requirement that would allow the Secretary of State to provide development assistance to support it? 
 Are the Government content that they will not be acting illegally by using aid money for such funds if the funds do not fully contribute to poverty reduction—or even depart entirely from that function? We do not want to discover that action can be taken against the Department and the Secretary of State. How will they be protected?

Chris Mullin: We are content, but if we accept the amendment, we could well find ourselves in the position that the hon. Lady describes, which is one reason why I shall argue that we should not accept it.

Cheryl Gillan: If the Minister does not mind me saying so, he is being a little naive about the Committee process. I said that this is a probing amendment. Earlier this week I noticed that he addressed himself strictly to the wording of an amendment, despite the fact that I had said that it was a probing amendment intended to be a vehicle for him to use to give information. He appears to be slightly worried about giving us information, and hides behind the strict wording of amendments, which I said were not perfect vehicles. We may not expect to see our amendments enshrined in the Bill. As I generously said to the Minister, imperfect though they are, they are our offerings, please take them away, work on them and return with something acceptable. That generous offer was utterly rejected by the Minister. Out of character, he threw those amendments back in my face. I do not want the Minister to hide behind the strict wording of the amendments, I want him to tell the Committee how the Government will be protected, if they are content that they will not be acting illegally.
 Does clause 4 mean that the aid budget can be used for almost anything? It appears to be so broadly drafted that it could. What real safeguards are in place to ensure that the majority of aid spending is wholly and not just partially concerned with poverty reduction? Why include the first three clauses and then include clause 4, which drives a coach and horses through them? 
 Lastly, what is to stop the Government setting up a fund and financing development aid from it? Does that mean that future Governments could evade their own poverty focus and the poverty focus enshrined in the Bill?

Tom Clarke: In the probing spirit that the hon. Lady is encouraging, and in view of her earlier reference to UNESCO, is it now the official policy of the Opposition that we remain in UNESCO?

Cheryl Gillan: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am not prone to making policy on the hoof nor to knee-jerk reactions. To be fair, that would depend on our evaluation of the role of UNESCO when we entered Government; that is a perfectly reasonable approach. I do not have the knowledge today to say whether we would want to remain in UNESCO. In all probability, we would remain within it until that evaluation was complete. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a pat answer, and I cannot be caught on the hoof on our policy. The rational approach would be to evaluate UNESCO and decide of what benefit it was; indeed, to decide whether it fell within the criteria, parameters and aspirations that are supposedly encompassed in the Bill.
 Finally, what is to stop the Government setting up a fund and financing development aid from it, completely evading the Bill's provisions? Much was made on Second Reading of the need to protect development aid money from misuse—from aid and trade provisions; from diversion for political ends—but the clause appears to provide a vehicle whereby that may occur. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give me the reassurances that I seek. 
 I appeal to the Minister not simply to read the notes prepared by officials or to rely on arguments about the wording of the amendments. Will the Minister please, in the spirit of our discussions, enlighten us about the Department's thinking? We would all be most grateful for that, and it would benefit aid and international development as a whole.

Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on beginning what will clearly be another long day by discussing the words ``wholly'' and ``partly'' for 25 minutes without repetition, hesitation or deviation. That was quite an achievement—I certainly could not have done it—and she should be invited to take part in the radio programme ``Just a Minute''.
 I understand the hon. Lady's argument and I have genuinely tried to feel passionately about this matter. However, the work of the Select Committee on International Development and what I have read in the past four years has convinced me that all the organisations to which she referred contribute to poverty reduction in one way or another, so it is right and proper that we pay tribute to them. I accept that some organisations do not function as well as others; indeed, that problem is being dealt with in respect of UNESCO, which has been somewhat inefficient and is trying to be more efficient in future. 
 The truth is that there is no substance to what the hon. Lady has been saying. Clause 4(4) makes clear the meaning of the phrase ``relevant purpose'' and refers back to clause 1. When we considered clause 1, Conservative Members wittered on at length about wanting to stress certain causes of poverty above others, but they did not challenge those elements that qualify the main concerns about which the hon. Lady is beefing. I therefore fail to understand why she felt it necessary to talk for 25 minutes about absolutely nothing. 
 I cannot support the amendment, but I should like to point out to the hon. Lady, who clearly suffers from short-sightedness, that one can buy bifocal spectacles to help with reading. Alternatively, she could try contact lenses.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful for the advice, but I believe that the hon. Lady's medical training relates not to eyes, but to a different part of the body.

Jenny Tonge: To that remark, I can add only that HRT is also very useful.

Andrew Rowe: With reference to that last exchange, perhaps I should find out whether any spectacles that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham might decide to buy would be more expensive as a result of the Budget.
 The central point of my hon. Friend's argument is important. The Secretary of State for International Development is accountable to the House not only in respect of money dispersed directly through DFID, but in terms of subscriptions to international organisations. There is no doubt that it is the House's duty to find out whether subscriptions to multilateral organisations such as the EU, or United Nations organisations such as UNESCO, are being spent properly and appropriately. In some cases, the transparency of such organisations leaves quite a lot to be desired. 
 My hon. Friend has pointed out that there is a gap of several years in our funding of the African Development bank, but that is undoubtedly because the bank was functioning extremely badly. It would be to the enlightenment of the entire Committee if the Minister could say a little more about the criteria and methods that the Department uses to establish whether organisations to which we subscribe are behaving in ways of which we approve. 
 My next point is self-serving, but I am not ashamed of that. It relates to the faintly defeatist view that, given the history of votes in the Committee, there is a possibility that the Government will win the vote on the amendment.

Chris Mullin: Where are the Tories?

Andrew Rowe: The Minister is unfair. My colleagues have a remarkable capacity for picking up the debate quickly—when they appear. That may be something to do with the way in which the arguments unfold, or they may simply be very quick.
 There is a new political institution in this country called the UK Youth Parliament. When I put down a parliamentary question to ask the Secretary of State to consider meeting members of the Youth Parliament to discuss how they could help further the objectives of her Department, I received a deeply cautious reply. That is a pity. The 250 young people who gathered in London to create a manifesto for the election were extraordinarily committed, anxious to be inclusive and unprejudiced, and showed a concern for the rest of the world, particularly the developing and poorer countries. 
 Because the Youth Parliament is supported by a raft of young people who elect its members, and are involved with the work of the committees, it is in a strong position to be a mechanism for informing the rising generation about international development: its goals, objectives and ways of functioning. I urge the Minister—or the Secretary of State—to make time to meet some of those young people. They will raise constructive and interesting points and will not waste time. The Youth Parliament could be a mechanism for improving the education of young people about international development. After all, the younger generation will bear the cost of our subscriptions to international organisations in years to come. 
 Even if the amendment is not accepted, I hope that it is recognised that we have drawn attention to organisations that are ``wholly or partly'' dedicated to the objectives of the Department. As the Youth Parliament beds down, will the Minister consider the long term, and the possibility of giving subsidy to international development education? That is not a foolish thought. The UN Environment Programme has already said that to follow up to the Rio summit nine years ago it is duty bound to create a representative group of young people in the UK. It has decided not to create its own group, but to use the UK Youth Parliament. If an international organisation can take such an enlightened view, so can our Department. 
 I am happy to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. It is key that effective mechanisms are in place for assessing whether our subscriptions to international and other organisations coincide with the Department's priorities. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Chris Mullin: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton. The Committee is generally good natured. Although one or two of the contributions have been a mite long-winded, those delivered from the Government Benches have been models of conciseness.
 I deal first with some of the wilder assertions of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. She claimed that clause 4 drives a coach and horses through the rest of the Bill because it allows us to contribute to organisations and funds that do not focus on poverty. It does nothing of the sort. It makes it clear that the Secretary of State will have to be satisfied that any organisation to which we subscribe contributes to a reduction in poverty. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, the test is the same as that which is found in clause 1(1), to which the Committee has already agreed. 
 That is my first killer fact. My second is that the previous Government subscribed to all the organisations to which the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred, except UNESCO and, later on, UNIDO.

Cheryl Gillan: If the Minister thinks that that is a killer fact, he is killing us with kindness. I am well aware of the subscriptions paid by the previous Government. However, now that this legislation is being introduced, subscriptions must be looked at in a different light. We are not criticising the fact that the Government are subscribing to those organisations, but asking whether the Bill's aims will be satisfied. I am surprised that the Minister thinks that our previous subscription to those organisations is a killer fact.

Chris Mullin: The fact ought, at least, to modify the indignation with which the hon. Lady talks about the organisations. I agree with her that we ought to monitor the activities of organisations to which we pay substantial subscriptions. The previous Government decided to withdraw their subscription to UNESCO because they did not think that it was providing value for money. I do not want to get into the argument about whether that was right or wrong. There were certainly good reasons for their actions at the time. We believe that UNESCO is now making a serious effort to get back on track, and we are taking a close interest in that process.
 We have used the phrase ``wholly or partly'' because not all the objectives of such organisations are designed solely to reduce poverty. For example, UNESCO's responsibilities include the identification and maintenance of world heritage sites. If the ``partly'' were removed, we would face unnecessary difficulties. 
 I will give a couple of examples of the ways in which we monitor the organisations to which we make subscriptions. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham complained the other day about the amount of money that we spend on publications. However, the series of institutional strategy papers that set out our objectives for such organisations, and examine the extent to which those objectives are met, are among our most useful publications. Other countries also find them useful. 
 We have had some success in persuading the organisations to adopt the poverty-focused objectives that we are anxious to see. In November 1999, for example, the FAO's general conference adopted a strategic framework for the next 15 years. Its three interrelated global goals—food security, the contribution of agriculture to development and the conservation and use of sustainable natural resources—are consistent with international development targets, which is on-message. Institutional strategy papers are the place to look because we ensure that we get value for money from the organisations to which we subscribe and that they meet wholly or partly—but preferably wholly—our poverty-focused objectives. 
 The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) asked about the Youth Parliament. I cannot give him an undertaking off the top of my head, but I am prepared to believe that it is a worthwhile organisation and I would be prepared to meet it should I receive an invitation. 
 The Bill's principle purpose is to prevent future Governments from tying aid. We want no more Pergau dams and no more aid that is related to arms contracts, which is why we are entrenching that principle in law. However, it is also important to leave the Secretary of State with sufficient flexibility to exercise common sense in the way in which we dispose of our aid budget and the organisations to which we subscribe. Were we to pass the amendment we would find ourselves in a situation where common sense and flexibility were wholly circumscribed, which is not something that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham would want us to do. 
 The hon. Lady said that she was only probing and I hope that I have assured her about the degree to which we monitor the organisations to which we subscribe. That she can find in our annual report details of those organisations illustrates that this is a transparent process where nothing is hidden. Should anyone think that some organisations are providing insufficient value for money we are open to scrutiny both inside and outside Parliament. However, we must retain the ability to contribute to organisations and funds which have mandates or constitutions that are not strictly or exclusively focused on the reduction of poverty, but which can make a valuable contribution to particular areas or issues related to the reduction of poverty. That is why we prefer the definition in clause 4, which I repeat is the same definition that the Committee agreed in clause 1. I must therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Cheryl Gillan: I thank the Minister for going through the motions on the probing amendment, but he has not fully answered my questions. I appreciate that he has laid out in the annual report the funds and organisations to which the beginning of clause 4 relates, but he has not explained how or on what terms a subscription would be cancelled. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) asked me whether our policy towards UNESCO would be to stay in or get out, and I gave him the honest answer that we would evaluate the situation. Nevertheless, I am disappointed that the Minister is unable to set out the details of the criteria that the Government would apply. What would constitute a misdemeanour that would ensure a subscription was withdrawn?

Chris Mullin: Like the Opposition, were they in government, we shall carefully evaluate the organisations to which we subscribe. We would withdraw an organisation's subscription if we concluded that we were not getting value for money and we could not influence it mainly to focus on poverty. Regardless of how hard the hon. Lady works she cannot create a difference between us.

Cheryl Gillan: I am not trying to create a difference. I merely feel that given that I am in opposition and do not have access to vast resources or departmental advice, the Minister could have given a more detailed explanation of the criteria, evaluation methods, time scale and how often the organisations and subscriptions will be reviewed. I am not saying that there is a difference between us, but expressing regret that the Minister has been unable to do that.
 I am also disappointed that the Minister has not dealt with my questions, especially with regard to what could prevent a future Government from setting up a fund to finance development aid and evading the poverty focus. If a fund need be only partly involved in the reduction of poverty, it is within the bounds of possibility that that could be used as a perfectly legal and justifiable device to get around the aims of the Bill. I regret that the Minister did not focus on that. 
 As we are about to move on to the clause 4 stand part debate, I shall conclude my remarks, but I may return to the matter on Report. Reluctantly, but with a sense of encouragement that the Minister may work a little harder in dealing with the issues that I raised, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Cheryl Gillan: Clause 4 drives a coach and horses through the Bill. The Minister was disingenuous in his explanations to the Committee. The explanatory notes make it clear that the clause is there to evade the poverty focus. They state:
 ``This clause provides (in subsection (1)) for the Secretary of State to undertake activities or enter into arrangements which, while they might not in themselves meet the tests set out in clauses 1, 2 and 3, are preparatory to, or will facilitate the provision of, assistance under these clauses. An example of such activity is the commissioning of research.'' 
The Minister did not respond to my point about the commissioning of research. Perhaps he forgot that I had mentioned it, but I hope that he will deal with it later. 
 Conservative Members believe that clause 4 has the potential for misuse. Subsection (1) states: 
 ``The Secretary of State may with a view to preparing for or facilitating the exercise of his powers under section 1, 2 or 3... 
 (b) carry on any other activities.'' 
That is a very broadly drafted provision. It allows the Secretary of State to do anything at all within the meaning of the Bill. If the Minister says that that does not drive a coach and horses through the purpose of the Bill, I beg to differ. In law, the Secretary of State could rely on subsection (1)(b), because who is to know what they could do with the money from the Department under that let-out provision? There is no limit on the proportion of aid that is to be spent through funds and subscriptions.

Chris Mullin: The hon. Lady said that subsection (1)(b) gives the Secretary of State power to carry on any other activities. However, subsection (1) states that he or she may do so only
``with a view to preparing for or facilitating the exercise of his powers under section 1, 2 or 3''. 
That is the constraint on the Secretary of State that the hon. Lady appears to have overlooked.

Cheryl Gillan: I have not overlooked it at all—I quoted it. The Secretary of State could do anything in anticipation of exercising the powers under clauses 1, 2 and 3, because he or she could always argue that he or she was moving on to focus on poverty reduction. The provision is broadly drafted and wide open to interpretation. Subsection (1)(b) could even allow a repeat of the Pergau dam affair.

Andrew Rowe: My hon. Friend may recall an unfortunate chapter in the history of the Church of England, when an enthusiastic dean took the mappa mundi to Australia on the basis that our Australian brothers and sisters would flock in such large numbers to see this extraordinary medieval artefact that huge sums would be raised for the purposes of the Church of England. In fact, the operation ran at a considerable loss. It is conceivable that, under the catch-all phrase ``any other activities'', the Secretary of State might, with the best will in the world, commission the use of some building—a dome, for example—and run into extraordinary financial difficulties thereby. She would be able to justify that on the basis that the clause gave her the right so to do.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend is right. That is one of the potential interpretations of the clause. One of the great arguments for the dome—with which we are all familiar—was that it would create jobs and reduce poverty in an area of London. The provision gives the Secretary of State carte blanche to carry out any activities. I presume that if, for example, the Department wished to continue to fund small arms sales to the Caribbean, which it has done in the past, that would be deemed to fall within the ambit of the Bill and the Department could rely on the supplementary powers granted by the clause.

Chris Mullin: Did I hear the hon. Lady correctly? Did she say that DFID has funded small arms sales to the Caribbean? If so, could she expand on that?

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister may correct me, but I believe that, in the past three years, international development funds have been spent on small arms to be used by police in the Caribbean and on training projects. Does the Minister think that the clause would allow such projects to go ahead? I am not criticising such projects, I am simply asking whether the clause would allow for them. The Minister can ask his officials, and if I am incorrect I will withdraw my remarks. However, I understand that funding was provided for a police project and that the Department gave financial support to the purchase of small arms—for the prevention of drug running and crime, and in the interests of good government.

Chris Mullin: That perspective differs slightly from that implied by the hon. Lady's original remark. It is true that the training of police and, occasionally, the military, in the interests of good governance, is permitted under the Bill, and we have dealt with that. However, it is not sensible to suggest that our Department funds the trafficking of small arms to the Caribbean. While the hon. Lady obviously did not mean to imply that, it could have been inferred from her remarks.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister doth protest too much. My remarks are not designed to be pejorative; they are designed to probe and to find out what is and what is not possible within the supplementary powers granted by the clause. In all our discussions, I am trying to find out what will change, what will stay the same and what we can look forward to in future. I certainly do not want to give the impression that the Department is trafficking in small arms—quite the reverse. If that was the case, it would be the biggest scandal in memory.
 The Minister must not be bashful. We would support the use of small arms in a police project to stop drug smuggling, but I want to know whether such projects will be able to continue within the parameters of the supplementary powers envisaged under the clause. 
 There are no limits on the proportion of aid spent through funds and subscriptions, which worries me. When I spoke to the amendments, I did not mention the biggest contribution to the biggest fund of all, the European Development Fund. The contribution is £197 million in this financial year, and will rise to £219 million under the plans for 2001-02. Coupled with the money spent through other funds and on other subscriptions, a vast proportion of our aid budget seems to go in that direction. Although the supplementary powers may be slipped in under the clause, they cover the bulk of the Department's expenditure. However, the Budget does not limit the proportion of aid that goes in that direction. 
 It is not outwith the realms of possibility that the Department could pass over its entire vote to other organisations to spend. No part of the legislation—certainly not the supplementary powers—would prevent 99.9 per cent. of the aid from being spent in that way by a future Government. We heard that the legislation was directed at the behaviour of future Governments. 
 There is no guarantee of quality, especially for the funds and subscriptions. Again, it is not outwith the realms of possibility that the money could be handed over in funds and subscriptions and not used at all. If there is no guarantee of quality and no restriction on the proportion of the sum spent on such agencies, scrutiny and audit, and the capability for them, are even more important. To be frank, such scrutiny would be slightly more thorough than considering the institutional strategy papers of which the hon. Gentleman made so much. 
 Why was the clause drafted so broadly, and with the lack of transparency that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) referred to when he spoke to the amendments? The clause could have been improved. It is contradictory to the spirit of the Bill. I will listen carefully to what the Minister says but, if we are not satisfied, we will return to the matter, if we are given enough time on Report and Third Reading. In the meantime, I hope that he will enlighten us on the true reasons behind the clause. 
 The Minister can be honest. He does not need to make excuses. If he wants the additional powers in the clause so that he has the freedom to act, let him tell us frankly. Otherwise, he could tell us what restrictions he feels are placed on the Secretary of State and himself by the clause. I do not expect him to be bashful or to hide his light under a bushel. We must ensure that we know exactly why the Department has put the clause into the legislation.

Chris Mullin: The hon. Lady's remarks are based on a massive misreading of the clause. It is nonsense to suggest that it drives a coach and horses through the Bill; it merely enables the Government to carry on with activities that the previous Government took for granted and that, no doubt, any future Conservative Government will take for granted.
 Clause 4(1) does not allow the Secretary of State to do anything she wants. Its purpose is to allow support for activities such as the commissioning of research and the recruitment of personnel, which in themselves may not contribute to the reduction of poverty, but are clearly and causally related to it. The hon. Lady is not even listening. I have already pointed out that clause 4(1)(b) should not be read in isolation, as the hon. Lady chose to do. Clause 4(1) makes absolutely clear that clauses 1, 2 and 3 provide a constraint on the Secretary of State. 
 The hon. Lady is also wrong to suggest—or at least she massively overstates the case—that spending on funds and subscriptions could be unlimited. The power for most expenditure on multilateral programmes stems not from clause 4 but from clause 11, which relates to the multilateral development banks, from the European Communities Act 1972 or from clause 1. Clause 4 deals only with supplementary powers. I rest my case.

Cheryl Gillan: The derisory way in which the Minister has replied to the debate on the clause makes me even more determined to return to the matter on the Floor of the House on Report and Third Reading. For the moment, I rest my case.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Meaning of ``assistance''

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 32, leave out from `assistance''' to end of line 35 and insert
`means assistance in the fields of economic development, administration and social services, consisting in the making available of the services of any body or person, training facilities, the supply of material, or the results of research undertaken in any such fields.'.
 Despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Richmond Park, I am still sufficiently useful to be able to rise to move the amendment.

Tony Worthington: I merely wanted to inform the hon. Lady who is leading so tediously for the Opposition that she was offered a medical diagnosis.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the hon. Member for Richmond Park's suggestion that I should take HRT is not gratefully received. I am still young—indeed, I was the youngest woman on the Tory Benches during the previous Parliament. The hon. Gentleman might he be falling asleep and not listening to what I have to say, but I am scrutinising the Bill with the vigour of a young woman.

Jenny Tonge: I withdraw my allegation.

Cheryl Gillan: I certainly do not take medical advice from the Liberal Democrats.
 Anybody who is as familiar as the Minister must by now be with the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 will recognise the form of words used in the amendment. In a pattern that is becoming familiar to the Committee, we seek to probe the thinking behind the formulation of the Bill. We are trying to use the amendment to classify economic development as an important objective of technical assistance. Indeed, that description of technical assistance is taken from the 1980 Act, which sets out a definition of technical assistance that includes assistance in economic development. 
 The Bill makes no reference to economic development. What is wrong with the old definition? Why is it not included in the Bill? If it was an omission and if the Minister wishes to pop it back into the Bill, we would be terribly accommodating. The Minister is welcome to re-examine the provisions of clause 5, and do whatever is necessary to improve the Bill. I hope that the Government are not so arrogant as to think that the Bill is perfect. It is remarkable that no Government amendments have been tabled. It must be the only Bill in this Parliament not to have been amended by the Government. If the Minister wishes to take our advice, we will be happy to facilitate such an improvement.

Andrew Rowe: I hesitate to suggest that my hon. Friend is in danger of being intemperate, but has she any grounds for assuming that the Government are ever arrogant?

Cheryl Gillan: I am being tempted by my hon. Friend. A certain amount of arrogance is attached to the fact that, even though the Opposition have agreed to facilitate the Bill, its Committee stage has been programmed and confined to four sittings in the dying embers of a Government. That is fairly arrogant. If the Government showed any surefootedness or pride—

Joe Benton: Order. I must point out to the hon. Lady that we are not debating the timetabling motion, so will she please return to amendment No. 12?

Cheryl Gillan: After your wise intervention, Mr. Benton, I shall return immediately to the amendment. However, you must agree that I was sorely tempted by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent.
 Technical assistance, as we all know, is a vital part of British development assistance. It is also the aspect in which the British people have the most confidence. Technical assistance has provided developing countries with valuable know-how and skills that they would not otherwise have had. As one of the world's premier financial centres, the UK has a unique role in assisting developing countries with their economic development as well as with their social development—something with which the Minister agrees. 
 The British public support technical assistance. That is proved in a survey conducted by the Department of 1,772 people, who were chosen at random. It found that 18 per cent. of respondents thought that providing financial assistance was the most important way to reduce poverty. The Department also found that the majority of those who supported aid for development believed that technical assistance and training nurses, doctors and engineers were more important than financial aid. 
 Economic development is crucial to future development, particularly the future of the environment. Paragraph 25 of the globalisation White Paper states: 
 ``Poverty and environmental degradation are often linked. Economic development gives countries improved access to new, less resource-intensive and less polluting technologies. Over the last fifty years, it has been more closed economies—such as the former Communist countries—that have had the worst record of industrial pollution and urban environmental degradation.'' 
If the Government truly care about the global environment, they must reinstate economic development into technical assistance. 
 The White Paper also highlights the importance of multinational companies and transnational corporations in economic development. It states: 
 ``TNCs can contribute significantly to economic development in host countries through their technology, specialised skills and ability to organise and integrate production across countries, to establish marketing networks and to access finance and equipment on favourable terms.'' 
If the Government support the role of transnational corporations in contributing to economic development, they should include economic development in the meaning of technical assistance in the Bill, so that they, too, can support developing countries through technical assistance in technology and specialised skills. 
 Technical assistance has been vital in the past 20 years and we should like the same definition to be used in the Bill as in the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. In summary of this unambitious little amendment, I want to know why an altered definition of technical assistance has been used in the Bill. What does the Minister think are the implications of the changes that have been made, and why does the Bill not mention support for economic development, when, to judge by the Government's own statements, they believe that that is essential to poverty reduction? The amendment is a probing one, designed to get to the root of the drafting. Perhaps the Minister will allow me to hope that at least one Opposition suggestion will be taken into account.

Andrew Robathan: I do not want to add too much to my hon. Friend's remarks. However, I, too, should like to know in what way the Government see the definition of technical assistance in the Bill as an improvement on the definition in the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. I do not say that being 20 years old makes a definition better than one that is produced now, but the new definition seems to be rather more restrictive than the old, and it might not be beneficial to the Bill. I do not think that it is as good as the earlier one.
 The Minister should deal with the issue clearly and in detail. Although the draftsmen and DFID civil servants who have been hard at work on the Bill do an excellent job, people sometimes get things wrong. Will the Minister explain what is better about the new definition and to what he objected in the previous definition?

Andrew Rowe: One aspect of the administration of our development programme that bothers me is that, entirely understandably—out of prudence and the need to safeguard itself against such criticism as hon. Members, including members of the International Development Committee, level against it—the Department has, over the years, made it so complex and difficult to apply for its support that it is worth while for large NGOs and even university departments to employ consultants to make grant applications. The Department is by no means unique in that respect; the same is true of the big United Nations organisations, such as the World Health Organisation.
 I am concerned for two reasons. The approach in question does not necessarily provide the safeguards that the organisations think it does. I often liken it to the situation in the EU: every time incompetence is found, the response is to create a whole new raft of theoretical hurdles through which an application or project evaluation has to pass. The EU structure involves so many people in vetting applications that the ownership of responsibility for a decision is too diffuse. It does not really work. The DFID is in danger of developing a similar structure. 
 One of the effects of the system is that a great deal of time is taken up, and that is something that the Department needs to examine. The British Consultants Bureau tells me that independent consultants, NGOs, university departments and others spend many hours concocting their proposals to obtain financial support; that is hugely expensive and uses scarce professional time. The system also militates against indigenous NGOs' receiving direct assistance. If we are to make development assistance effective worldwide, we have to transfer it from expatriates, mainly from the north, to indigenous professionals and organisations in the south. Such people therefore need a much easier passage—a lower hurdle to jump—to obtain the support that they require. 
 I considered raising my next point in clause 7 stand part, but I think that now is the appropriate time. I am increasingly concerned about the charges that are levied by this country on overseas students. The cost of sending professionals here for a year or two to improve their skills so that they can go home and run a service for, say, a huge area of sub-Saharan Africa is too high. The result is twofold: first, NGOs and other organisations find it difficult to raise the money—not only for fees, but for accommodation and living allowances—that is needed for the students, many of whom have a huge contribution to make to their own countries; and, secondly, in countries where the method of selecting students is not as transparent as we would like, one finds that the people sent are not the most appropriate students, but are those whose turn it is to be rewarded by whichever organisation in their country provides access to DFID or other British scholarships. I hope that the Department is taking more care about that than it sometimes has in the past. 
 On Second Reading I suggested that even if the Government or the Treasury decided that they were not prepared to reduce overseas students' costs, they might consider rebating a proportion of them if a student returned to his or her home country. That is tremendously important and would constitute a huge incentive for such people to return home. The Minister did not have time to comment on the matter then, so perhaps he would like to do so now. 
 It is interesting to note that the previous Government greatly accelerated the ending of tied accommodation, such as student hostels, nurses' accommodation, and so on. To some extent, the freeing up of the housing market, which has greatly benefited many people, needs to be re-examined. It is clear that in the south-east in particular, the ability of young policemen, nurses and doctors to buy a house is constrained, so perhaps we should consider providing tied accommodation once again. In politics, matters constantly shift and this one is particularly relevant to overseas development. Many students who come to this country are stretched to the limit by huge fees and associated costs, and can afford only the grottiest of accommodation. They are not being looked after as well as they deserve, which makes it harder for them to study. Moreover, they and the families who sometimes accompany them are often preyed on by their neighbours. To that extent, the amendment deals with some serious underlying concerns.

Chris Mullin: The main point from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham concerned why we are changing the definition of technical assistance. We have repeatedly made it clear that the Bill's approach constitutes a departure from previous legislation. Our key aim is to narrow the purposes of development assistance but to broaden the means available to the Secretary of State to fulfil those purposes. Unlike its predecessor, the new definition is not exhaustive. We believe that it complements the definition of financial assistance and will allow a wide range of actions. For example, it will allow the Secretary of State to grant scholarships, which the present definition does not. The old definition confused areas of assistance with means of assistance, but the new one does not. We do not need to refer to economic development because the purposes described in clause 1(1) will ensure that that subject is covered. The hon. Lady asked about the implications of a lack of reference to economic development, and I can tell her that there are none.
 The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent mentioned rebating costs associated with students who return to their own country, but a number of factors would first have to be demonstrated. For example, where the money came from the aid budget it would be necessary to demonstrate a specific relationship to the reduction of poverty and the Bill's other main focuses. Moreover, a number of other Government Departments would doubtless have to be consulted. The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to give him a satisfactory answer off the top of my head, and I suggest that he writes to me in a little more detail.

Andrew Rowe: I accept what the Minister says, but his inability to give an answer is partly a consequence of the truncated nature of the debate. I made the suggestion on Second Reading, so there has been time in which to explore it further. It is a little disappointing to be told now that I must make the suggestion again and in writing.

Chris Mullin: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to be frank, my instinct is that his proposal would not fit within the terms of the Bill and that the Committee is the wrong place in which to raise it. If he wants to probe my instinct, he must set out his proposition in more detail and explain how it relates to the alleviation of poverty and the other objectives of the aid budget. However, the Committee is not the right place to do that and time is limited. None the less, if he wants to write to me I shall be happy to reply. I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.